A self doesn't exist, but the phenomenons exist somehow. They don't come into appearance. Otherwise there's no need for compassion.

There is a thin devision line between nihilism and the view of emptyness.

There is compassion for those who are still caught up in the dream, and also the nature of reality is seen to be very fragile.

Yes, very fragile and mysterious. I like this sentence "Compassion for those who..." The result of thinking should be like this.To say "nothing exists, so nothing matters and there's no need for compassion" sounds wrong in my ears.This is the fragile point. Things are dreamed but nevertheless existent in a way we (I) do not understand yet.Pain is a dream but it hurts anyhow.

The problem with ideas such as the illusion or dream-like nature of reality is that it can create the misleading idea that there is another scene which is somehow more true, that when the Buddha awakened he somehow went elsewhere and that nirvana is a separate realm.

Okay. There's not a seperate realm called Nirvana and no other true scene. I agree. Buddha didn't escape into another realm (like heaven) but he woke up.We are sleeping, dreaming, and the effort is to wake up.

I have decided to stick with love.Hate is too great a burden to bear.- Martin Luther King, Jr. -

Johnny Dangerous wrote:What is it again, "Loving Kindness saves one from nihilism, emptiness saves one from absolutism".

Don't remember where I heard it.

Bodhichitta. The nature of emptiness is compassion/love. Cannot be expressed by thought. Clinging to concept emptiness is a danger. No mental fixations means not we should not take medicine since 'we' aren't.

An example by Tsultrim Rinpoche.

"Not to know the equality of appearance emptinessAnd get attached to appearances alone is delusionBut to get attached to emptiness alone is delusion tooIf you know the equality of appearance emptinessThere’s no need to get caught up in or give up phenomenaThose appearances and emptinessWhat you must do is to rest in the spaciousnessOf the equality of appearance emptiness".

futerko wrote:Some explanations of Cittamatra tend towards the idea that everything is just our imagination, but that doesn't adequately describe the achievement of the philosophy. Its more the idea that there is no "outside", no "beyond" to knowing - everything is an illusion, but there is no truth hidden behind the illusion, the truth lies in the fact that it is illusory.

So for example, anything man made has the mark of mind on it - it has been designed, thought out, there are blueprints and specifications - but what about apparently natural objects such as trees? - well, one can see a tree as providing wood, or fruit, or a home for insects, which are all partial views based upon a mental classifications, but ultimately the tree is part of the wider continuum of cause and effect, there is no dividing line between the tree and the carbon dioxide, sunlight, nutrients in the soil, etc. that go to make up the tree...

So some explanations say that all substance is God, there is intelligent design, but really, the perception of such a design is simply a reflection of the fact that we can make sense of the world and divide it up using thought based upon function...

The only thing "outside" the process is the perceiving mind, which can only really perceive from within the chain of cause and effect, but which appears as somehow separate from it - and therefore can posit a reflection of itself as "God" - substance, some kind of reality beyond the simple chain of causality, like an intelligence that operates to invisibly "pull the strings" to make phenomena appear to have some kind of logical structure, when really the "thing" adding the idea of a logical structure is nothing other than mind itself.

To put it simply, objects and thoughts of objects are the same thing. They are both self-same and dependent on an observer/subject, i.e. not self-same but impermanent, empty, and constantly in flux.

In my view, biologically speaking, we actually only ever experience our own mind directly.. For example:

An image is produced by the patterned excitation of the cones and rods in the retina. The excitation is processed by the neuronal system and various parts of the brain working in parallel to form a representation of the external environment in the brain. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina#Physiology )

So then it seems that what we appear to see is not "out there", it's an internal modal of the world in our own brain, assembled from the moment our brain starts developing in the womb. So although this line of text is emanating as various kinds of light from your screen, your experience of seeing this line of text is internal to you. Much like how hallucinations appear to be "out there", but they are of course internally generated. So a) everything you appear to see is already in your own mind, so there is no reason to add extra thinking and action on top of this to see something, which would be adding a layer of mental computations on top of this direct experience. You could say what you appear to "see" is in fact the very fabric of your own mind, and not the bubble of "inside" we think we are.. and B) all these forms you appear to see are thus internally generated, and as we know from physics, these forms actually don't exist as such, they are clouds of increasingly tiny particles in mostly empty space, in varying densities.. These "seen" forms are not real.. Yet they are based off this varying field of something and so are real. The forms we experience are illusions, but these illusions are based off something apparently real.

I suspect that the function responsible for this "virtual experience" is basically the same one that generates dreams, the difference being the amount and source of the input.

Throw in some of the odder things about quantum mechanics, such as observer/observed effects, and the collapsing of the quantum foam probability states and and things get really weird.

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness

To quote the Bodhidharma Anthology of early zen texts: "Thinking such as this is also wrong"

Disclaimer: If I have posted about something, then I obviously have no idea what I am talking about!

Johnny Dangerous wrote:As an example with the tree, it makes sense to say that the tree has no independent, inherent existence..not only makes sense, but is actually provable by examining the component parts of the tree, but saying that the parts that make up the tree are non-existent unless perceived by mind is really solipsism isn't it? It seems like a non-affrimation of existence outside of mind is more sensible than an affirmation of non-existence.

1.One of the difficulties that arise is that people start of with 'an existent thing" and then sort of try to talk some non-existence into it.For example, in this quote, you say "...the tree has no..."But right off the bat, you are asserting something called a tree.I am just using your quote as an example of a common hurdle.

2. "exist' is a loaded and somewhat misleading word. I think it is more accurate to say"a finite point where something cannot be further divided into components"because what we are trying to describe is some sort of ultimate 'existence' of a thing.

In a commentary on Chrandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara, Jamgon Mipham (1846 -1912) makes a good point, referring to the existence of a pot: "A pot is not empty of (being a) pot; it is empty of true existence". In other words, the various conditions which arise...including one's thoughts and perceptions, all contribute to the arising of a pot.

It is perhaps easier to think about a lot of electronic information which produces an image on a computer screen. In a relative context, something "exists" here. You are looking at a computer screen right now and reading this string of words, so there is no denying it. But the image on the computer screen has no "true existence", meaning that there is nofinite point where it cannot be further divided into components"and these components include both the pixels on the screen, your brain's ability to process the light coming in through the eyes, and the mind's generation of an experience of this processed light as a meaningful string of words.

So, the difficulty arises when we try to deconstruct things that don't "exist" in the first place,because in doing so, we invalidate our own experience.And if our experience in not valid,then, how can we trust that any Buddhist analysis of that experience (which is also an experience) is valid as well?

So, using your example of a tree,If you say "the tree does not exist" this is very problematic.But if you approach it from the other end, and say"there is no thing that exists which is a tree"...this is much clearer, I think....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

Johnny Dangerous wrote:As an example with the tree, it makes sense to say that the tree has no independent, inherent existence..not only makes sense, but is actually provable by examining the component parts of the tree, but saying that the parts that make up the tree are non-existent unless perceived by mind is really solipsism isn't it? It seems like a non-affirmation of existence outside of mind is more sensible than an affirmation of non-existence.

Here's some more of my "westernized" nonsense: If you were to somehow be able to observe the universe from outside of "spacetime", all of time and space would be laid out before you as a single whole, and this tree is not just a tree, but is the seed, the earth, the sun, the weather, all of the plants and animals nourishing the soil, and everything else that over a "length of time" caused that tree to be there, and all of this takes place at the same time in the same moment to you, the outside observer. The entire universe then has by extension given rise to this tree, because it's all an interconnected pyramid of cause and effect webs.

Disclaimer: If I have posted about something, then I obviously have no idea what I am talking about!

Johnny Dangerous wrote:It strikes me that it is one thing to say things do not exist as we see them - pretty much fundamental to any Buddhism, but then a different thing to make the assertion that things simply don't exist at all except when perceived. Is it an assertion of actual non-existence of phenomena which are not perceived, or is it simply a non-affrimation of their existence outside of mind?

As an example with the tree, it makes sense to say that the tree has no independent, inherent existence..not only makes sense, but is actually provable by examining the component parts of the tree, but saying that the parts that make up the tree are non-existent unless perceived by mind is really solipsism isn't it? It seems like a non-affrimation of existence outside of mind is more sensible than an affirmation of non-existence.

From my understanding, external objects are the waves and the mind/Mind is the ocean. When the ocean moves, you have waves. When there are no waves, you have a calm ocean. Somehow the mistaken identity is the waves are separated from the ocean, but waves and ocean are one or of the same suchness. There is no separation there. That is why it is said separation is an illusion. When enlightened we will see all dharmas are empty, and there is no distinction between objects and mind/Mind because dualities no longer exist. All is one. That's why all Buddhas share one Dharma body. What is that Dharma body? Probably empty, for all is empty for all is just names and forms which also empty right? So all dharmas are empty.

Chan/Zen cuts it short by pointing to the mind,

"Followers of the Way, you resolute students, what more is there for you to doubt in front of your eyes, whose is it? Grasp and use it. But never get attached to its name. This is called the profound principle. If you could thoroughly understand this, there would be no dharma to be disliked."

Virtuous monks, the corporeal body composed of the four elements is impermanent. Your spleen, stomach, liver, and gallbladder, also your hair, nails, and teeth, all are only manifestations of emptiness.

Would you like to know the three realms? They are not at all separate from the mind-essence of the one who is listening to my talk. Your one greedy thought is the realm of desire. Your one angry thought is the realm of form. Your one delusory thought is the realm of formlessness. These are the furnishings in your own house. The three realms do not declare, ‗We are the three realms.‘ But it is you, followers of the Way, right now vividly illuminating all things and measuring the whole world, who give the name to the three realms.

Only you, the follower of the Way right now in front of me listening to my talk, can enter fire without being burned; can enter water without being drowned; can enter the three realms of hell as if enjoying a garden party; can enter the hungry ghost and animal realms without suffering their vengeance. Why is this so? If you love the sacred and hate the secular, you will float and sink in the ocean of life and death. Delusions exist because they depend on the mind. If you are in no-mind, delusions won‘t disturb you. Without bothering to discriminate or cling to form, you will naturally attain the Way in no time.

Why is this so? As I see it, all dharmas are empty forms. When there is transformation, there is being. When there is no transformation, there is non-being. ‗The three realms are but Mind. The myriad dharmas are but consciousness.‘ Therefore it is said,

Followers of the Way, true Buddha has no figure. True Dharma has no form. You just set up patterns and create models in your mind through phantom transformationsEven if you were to get something, it would be nothing but a wild fox spirit.

You say, the thirty-two features and the eighty excellent qualities are the characteristics of a buddha.‘ Then the wheel-revolving sage-king must also be regarded as Tathagata. We should clearly understand that these are illusory appearances.

―A man of old said,The Tathagata reveals his body in various forms,In order to fit the world‘s common conceptions.Fearing to lead people into nihilistic views,He provisionally set up illusory names.The thirty-two features and eighty excellent qualitiesAre also illusory names

Johnny Dangerous wrote:As an example with the tree, it makes sense to say that the tree has no independent, inherent existence..not only makes sense, but is actually provable by examining the component parts of the tree, but saying that the parts that make up the tree are non-existent unless perceived by mind is really solipsism isn't it? It seems like a non-affirmation of existence outside of mind is more sensible than an affirmation of non-existence.

Here's some more of my "westernized" nonsense: If you were to somehow be able to observe the universe from outside of "spacetime", all of time and space would be laid out before you as a single whole, and this tree is not just a tree, but is the seed, the earth, the sun, the weather, all of the plants and animals nourishing the soil, and everything else that over a "length of time" caused that tree to be there, and all of this takes place at the same time in the same moment to you, the outside observer. The entire universe then has by extension given rise to this tree, because it's all an interconnected pyramid of cause and effect webs.

Congratulations, you just invented God. The only problem is, from outside of space-time one would see nothing at all. "Seeing" occurs when the light waves hit the retina, so if you are outside of the causal chain there would be no "contact".

we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche

futerko wrote:Congratulations, you just invented God. The only problem is, from outside of space-time one would see nothing at all. "Seeing" occurs when the light waves hit the retina, so if you are outside of the causal chain there would be no "contact".

And so therefore you sir, the observer of this mind that gives rise to your experience of the universe, are this aforementioned god. And this "outside of the universe" area is the uncreate, undefined voidness from which the bubble of universe/mind appears to appear.

Disclaimer: If I have posted about something, then I obviously have no idea what I am talking about!

futerko wrote:Congratulations, you just invented God. The only problem is, from outside of space-time one would see nothing at all. "Seeing" occurs when the light waves hit the retina, so if you are outside of the causal chain there would be no "contact".

And so therefore you sir, the observer of this mind that gives rise to your experience of the universe, are this aforementioned god. And this "outside of the universe" area is the uncreate, undefined voidness from which the bubble of universe/mind appears to appear.

I think I see what you are saying. Wouldn't this mean that the idea of a truly existing god was merely a reified reflection of our ourselves? An abstraction which posits an impossible way of being?

we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche

I notice he keeps talking about confidence or faith. I think confidence or faith in the person who is talking is no different than buddhas and bodhisattvas. And faith in Dharma, which I think require some understanding.

Peace outside.

Followers of the Way, if you want to be in accord with Dharma, you must be resolute. If you are spineless and unsure, then you can‘t be. A cracked vessel cannot contain ambrosial nectar. To be a great vessel of Dharma you must not be deceived by the opinions of others. Make yourself the master of everywhere; wherever you stand is the true place. Whatever comes from outside, don‘t ever accept it. Your one doubt is the devil, which immediately enters your mind. When a bodhisattva doubts, the demon of birth and death gets the advantage.

The Master addressed the assembly: ―Today‘s students of the Way must have faith in themselves. Do not seek anything outside. If you try to seek externally, you only accumulate artificial dust, and you won‘t be able to discern right from wrong. Buddhas and patriarchs appear only in written form. If someone brought up a phrase beyond the hidden and the revealed, you would immediately be filled with doubt, looking up to heaven, looking down to the earth, asking your neighbors for help, utterly perplexed.

Your single thought of non-discriminating light, pervading everywhere, is the real Samantabhadra. Your single thought that emancipates you wherever you may be, is the Dharma of Avalokitesvara Samadhi. These three always appear together, taking alternately the places of master and attendants. One is three. Three are one. Only when you understand it in this way do you have eyes to appreciate the sutras and shastras.

Followers of the Way, this one who is right now listening to my talk is not the four elements, but is using these four elements. When your understanding reaches this level, you are free to go and stay. According to this mountain monk‘s view, there is no dharma to be disliked. If you love the sacred, remember that the sacred is merely a name.

Followers of the Way, you must not be deceived by your illusory companion. Sooner or later, you will face impermanence. What are you seeking in this world in order to emancipate yourself?

You students do not understand this because you stick to names and phrases, and are perturbed by such words as ‗secular‘ and ‗sacred.‘ Consequently, this blinds your eye to the Way, and you cannot see clearly.

There is only the person who, not relying on anyone, listens to the Dharma. She is the mother of the buddhas. Therefore, buddhas are born from non-reliance. If you truly awaken to that non-reliance you will discover that buddhahood is nothing special to attain. Insight such as this is genuine insight.

Entering the Dharma realm of the unborn, traveling throughout every land, entering the world of the lotus womb17 and realizing that all dharmas are but empty forms. Nothing has its own substance.

But the teaching of the Zen school is not like this. It is revealing right now. No time is required. This mountain monk‘s teaching is just medicine for a corresponding sickness. Ultimately, there is not a single dharma that has substance. See thing this way and you will be a true renouncer of home. Having relinquished your household, you may spend ten thousand golden coins each day.

Followers of the Way, the resolute student of Dharma knows that at this moment there is nothing to do (buji). Only because you don‘t have enough faith in yourself do you search outside, thought after thought. Having thrown away your head, you seek it ceaselessly. Even the Bodhisattva of Complete and Sudden Enlightenment goes into the Dharmadhatu and manifests his body. Heading to the Pure Land, he dislikes the secular and delights in the sacred. Such a fellow is still attached to giving and taking, and holds on to the concepts of purity and defilement.

Followers of the Way, the one who at this moment in front of my eyes is shining alone and clearly hearing my teaching, this one dwells nowhere, penetrates throughout the ten directions and is completely free in the three realms. Goes into the state of differentiation, and is not affected by it; in an instant, pierces through the Dharmadhatu. On meeting a Buddha it is a Buddha, on meeting a patriarch it is a patriarch, on meeting an arhat it is an arhat, on meeting a hungry ghost it is a hungry ghost.

What is Dharma? Dharma is Mind. Mind-Dharma has no form, yet penetrates through the ten directions, revealing right in front of your eyes. Because of your insufficient faith you rely on names and phrases, you search for Buddha-Dharma in written words and speculate. You are as far away from it as heaven is from earth.

This very you existing clearly before my eyes, without form, shining alone—it is this one who can preach and listen to the Dharma. If you see it in this way, you are not different from the buddhas and patriarchs. Just never be distracted throughout the day, and whatever you see is it.

This is not a place for you to linger. The death-dealing devil of impermanence comes in an instant, without discerning between noble and base, old and young. If you don‘t want to be different from the buddhas and patriarchs, just don‘t seek outside.

Because you students of Dharma don‘t have enough confidence in yourselves, you search outwardly. Even if you find something through seeking externally, that something is merely a description in written words. You will nerver get the vital spirit of the patriarchs that way.

If you can stop your continuously seeking mind, then there will be no difference between you and the buddhas and patriarchs. Would you like know the buddhas and patriarchs? They are none other than those of you who are now in front of me, listening to the Dharma.

The disease is a lack of self-confidence. If your faith is insufficient, you will keep on wandering in confusion. No matter what the circumstances, you will be controlled and led by others. You will not find freedom.

If you can stop your continuously seeking mind, then there will be no difference between you and the buddhas and patriarchs. Would you like know the buddhas and patriarchs? They are none other than those of you who are now in front of me, listening to the Dharma.

NAMO AMITABHANAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)Bodhidharma [my translation]―I come to the East to transmit this clear knowing mind without constructing any dharma―

Johnny Dangerous wrote:I think I understand the basics of Madhyamaka, i've read Nagarjuna, a few books briefly covering the 3 or 4 schools of thought, and various explanations.

There is alot there that still goes over my head, i'm wondering if someone can simplify for me, because something is just not clicking not matter what I read...

How do objects perceived as "external" exist in relation to the mind exactly, I know there are a few different views, it all makes sense to me until this part. I cannot understand how something can only exist 'of the mind' that clearly has some sort of base existence on it's own to be labeled, and in the Lankavatara Sutra for example, Atoms and units of physical existence are referenced, which tells me that clearly there is some base object existing outside the skandhas ultimately right? Or is all perceived existence just the skandhas?

Is it accurate to say this existence is only conventional by definition, since inherent existence is denied?

Is the perception of there being an external physically existent object just a mistaken perception of a seperate subject and object?

I once wondered a lot that an object I see in front of my eyes is real or not. I'm not sure I find the right answer. What I tell here should be understood that is the path I have gone through from some pieces of the puzzle to a point where major pieces are put together to create a whole picture of the puzzle. That is where you have no doubt about what you see.If you have some Buddhism's seeds in mind, such as "Emptiness is form, form is emptiness", something like that, you may know (think) that external objects are illusions. (This is the work of the sixth consciousness.) But your feeling, based on your senses, says that they are real. (This is the work of the five primary consciousnesses.) Your mind would be divided by this discontentment among your consciousnesses which could lead you to headache and restlessness. (So, knowing something is not always a good thing if you don't know how your mind work. You may never find peace in your mind again.)I read some answers in this topic. I really enjoyed them at first. It seemed I get known more than I have already had. But then I felt headache and knowing became bored. That is when I realized that from the topic's matter, my mind jumps from this idea to that, follows the topic members' introduction, rather than sticking to the problem where it is ignited. This is the common way the mind works in our daily life.

The problem here is how to feel and see objects are illusions with your sixth consciousness, not just think about it. Let's investigate a table. In common sense, the table is a real solid object we use everyday to such an extent that we will be surprised if someone tell us that it doesn't really exist, that it only exists in our mind.

But it is true. From my experience, there are two ways to understand this. The first way is to understand seeing is not the function of your eyes (your senses) but your mind. It means your mind seeing, not your eyes (and ears, nose, tongue or body.) Your eyes are like a lamp in a dark room waiting for a switching (contact) to expose things. You can imagine a person is a five skandhas holding five lamps (five senses) to reveal things in the dark room called the world. The second way is to use what we may know in physics. Suppose that we have a microscope which can magnify our 'table' to billion times to such an extent that we enter the quantum world. What is the table from this point of view? It is no longer a solid object but it is like a flow of dust in voidness. It flows ceaselessly. Everything is also like that. There is no real boundary between them (table, chairs, floor, walls, etc.) like we see with our flesh eyes. Because there is no boundary, the universe is one and like an ocean of dusts, nothing else. The table in this scenario is like a waterfall. When looking at the waterfall from very far away, you see it as a static object all the time. But when you come very close to it, the static image disappears, instead it consists of countless water drops flowing ceaselessly and nothing as it is at the later moment. What happening to the table also happens to everything in the universe, including ourselves.

We know this fact but we don't see it. Instead, in practice, we see 'table' is a solid object. Our eyes tell our mind that. Our ears, from the sound when we knock on the table and our hand when touching it tell the same story. The only logical explanation for this phenomenon is we don't see the object as it is (a flux) instead we are seeing our consciousness! (I don't know how this makes sense to you but to me it is hard to come to this point of awareness. I found it when reading Surangama Sutra, about the second moon.) We see the world through our consciousness which functions like a veil. How does it work? When a visual object contacts the eye faculty, a visual consciousness arises and disappears. The contact continues moment after moment, so does the visual consciousness. This happens so fast that you have no idea about the interval. The consciousness is continuous and smooth that gives you the feeling it is stationary.

Like you see a movie on a screen. Your seeing is like the screen. The table in our example is like images of the movie. When you see things on the screen, you think that they are something out there. Sometimes you even think that you are not seeing the screen but the world made of things in the movie.

Even if you know that the table is a mental object created by your mind, you still see it and feel it real. And it is always there in your mind, affects the way you see the world. How is it possible? This is the work of the manas consciousness. This consciousness embraces the alaya consciousness or actually a part of it and mistakes this part as its ego. Everything in this part becomes real to you. You can see in society some people can talk very well about a certain field that we call them as physicists, mathematicians, politicians, architects, buddhists, etc. and the rest has few ideas about what they say.

The manas consciousness is where ideas or thoughts created and cover your seeing. These thoughts created depend on your sense of your ego and differentiation of it from the rest of the world (or the alaya consciousness.) And thanks to that you feel they are real, they are not only mental objects in your mind but somehow objects out there. The main trick of this mind game here is one mistakes those objects as one’s ego, for example one says this perception is mine, this feeling is mine, this body is mine, this house is mine, this job is mine, this religion is mine, I’m a physicist, I’m a teacher, I’m a Buddhist, etc. When they move, because of this mistake, you (your ordinary mind) move with them in the cycle of birth and death. So who are you, if you are not those objects?

If there is something in your mind unchanged when things change, it is you. Things like guests come and go in your mind. Only the host goes nowhere. Only your seeing, your True Mind in unchanged. That is you. It is like the screen unchanged all the time, only images on it change. (In Surangama Sutra, the Buddha said: “All living beings, since the time without beginning, are continuously born and continuously die, simply because they do not know the permanent True Mind, whose substance is, by nature, pure and bright. Instead they have relied on false thinking which is not Reality and so that the wheel of samsara turns.") If you know you is the True Mind (this knowing is not real but just the second moon, only enlightened ones see it very clear instead just know it), you return to it, stick to it, you are no long moved by things moving around you. You can see without any idea covers your seeing as if the manas ceases to function. No thought comes up in your mind to mislead your seeing, that you are this object or that then you should follow it, become someone else.

From this standpoint, when you see someone, for example, a politician delivering a speech, you will see all things just happen in his mind, like a movie being played in it. You see with your own eyes that he is dreaming. You may only hear sounds come out from his mouth, like you hear music, instead of things in those sounds, such as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘our country’, ‘rich’, ‘poor’, ‘peace’, ‘war’, etc. It is somehow like you are hearing a foreign language. Even one insults you, you can smile with him, because you only see that is the work of his mind, not your. You no longer engage in false thinking. When you come to this point, you may no longer see ‘things’ in my essay, that this is ‘you’, ‘me’, ‘the Buddha’, ‘True Mind’, ‘alaya’, ‘manas’, ‘mind’, ‘body’, ‘screen’, ‘waterfall’, ‘table’, etc. You may see in front of you is only a bunch of black dots on a white background. I don’t know how to describe things to you anymore. Because ‘I’ no longer exists as a real human out there but a mental image created by your mind right here right now, in this very moment, in your seeing. Forgive me because I’m not good in English.

An object you see in front of your eyes exists no where but in your own mind, in a very literal sense. That is to say, this is how the biology of your eyes, your brain and the function of eyesight works, neurologically. What we seem to see out of our eyes is a representation of the world our brain assembles.

Conceptually, this is like in that movie The Matrix, except that our "matrix" is a very personal experience, and maybe you could say that whatever is beyond it is some kind of undefined, uncreated reality, a kind of uncollapsed quantum probability field, perhaps.

Disclaimer: If I have posted about something, then I obviously have no idea what I am talking about!

Johnny Dangerous wrote:How do objects perceived as "external" exist in relation to the mind exactly

Because whatever you see, you see with your mind. Your five senses all give information to your mind, the mind shapes it into a form, and then imputes it as an existing object. Next comes the formation of either a good, neutral, or bad opinion on the object. Within all of this is the reification of subject-object duality, the belief of yourself as an entity that experiences these things, sees these things, and so on.

Take any object at all and try to find it as being separate from your mind, you can't do it. Even the idea "They are physical objects outside of me" is an idea, an imputation, a concept. Its something you thought up, an idea you project onto your world, onto objects, something to cling to, a view to hold, a position to take. Drop all of that, all those projections, let the mind abide naturally on the Middle Way, then you will see your true nature.

One example often cited is that of the mirror. The mind is like a mirror, it is clear, pristine, open, and without bias. Whatever you put in front of it, it will reflect. Whatever you remove from in front of it will vanish. The mirror has no opinions, it has no preference. Opinions, preferences and projections are dirt and dust on the mirror. The mirror just reflects whatever arises. The mind is also like this in its natural state. If you can abide on the Middle Way, then things will appear, abide, and vanish on their own, spontaneously and without any need for you to do anything with them, towards them, for them, against them. It all happens quite naturally. This is why the experience of the natural state is often described as ordinary. Its basic, open, simple, plain, clear, like a mirror. Its ordinary. Its without the elaborations and projections we constantly make onto the world around us, its without complication.

In relation to objects, you are the mirror, objects appear and are not separate from you in their appearance. Mental projection is delusion, abiding naturally without contrivance or opinion is the Middle Way. You can't separate the objects you perceive from the mirror. Whatever appears has done so in your own mind. It doesn't matter if there is an object somewhere that has a physical existence that you have never seen, your mind innately contains the potential to see anything just like a mirror innately contains the potential to reflect anything.

Johnny Dangerous wrote:I cannot understand how something can only exist 'of the mind' that clearly has some sort of base existence on it's own to be labeled, and in the Lankavatara Sutra for example, Atoms and units of physical existence are referenced, which tells me that clearly there is some base object existing outside the skandhas ultimately right? Or is all perceived existence just the skandhas?

What you are contemplating is the fact that when you leave a room, an object is still there, correct? France exists whether or not we have actually visited it. But all of these things are ideas. France is a concept. The room, the object, you, leaving it. Even the mind as a mirror is an idea, a symbol, pointing to an experience.

Johnny Dangerous wrote:Is the perception of there being an external physically existent object just a mistaken perception of a seperate subject and object?

Yes. Although obviously the physical universe is not contained within your mind in the sense that I do not "live inside" your mind, at the same time you can't separate any of your experience of the physical universe FROM your mind, and thats the key point. There is no way to separate experience from mind, whatever is experienced happens within your own mind, by you. If I am with you, then we might each have our own experience, but for each of us its not-separate from our own mind. You cannot conceive of a single concept that is separate from your own mind.

And of course, objects in themselves have no real existence. Atoms are made of smaller particles, and so forth. All things have arisen within the context of dependent origination. But even these concepts are just mind. This is why words of Dharma, hearing teachings of Dharma, and so forth is so important. It introduces to your mind concepts that can lead you to liberation. Its all called skillful means because in essence, all concepts are forms of delusion, but in practice some concepts lead you closer to understanding while others lead you further from it.

Einstein once complained about the moon not existing if it wasn't observed, due to some quantum physics phenomena.. So who knows, really? Of course, something is always observing it at any given moment, but.. Yea.

Anyway I had a problem with this everything is your own mind business, until I investigated the biology involved and saw that this was actually literally the case.. Now when I look at a distant tree, I know I am not actually looking at a tree, but rather at a kind of internal 3d modal of a tree my brain slapped together based on the thousands and thousands of independent input streams it was getting from my retina, using memorized forms as it's instruction set.

This is like an online computer game, like say world of warcraft, when you get into it and associate yourself with the little bouncy character, and you see trees and objects and other people wandering around, but of course these don't actually exist as anything but streams of information coming off a central server [raw reality], sent to your computer [brain] via the internet networks [nerve system] and rendered into apparent forms by the game client [say, subconscious, 5 skandhas], displayed on your screen [consciousness] and viewed by the gamer [awareness]. Every gamer has the same server giving them the same information, from whatever angle they happen to be in, and to each of them it seems like an independent experience, but it's all actually the same server.

Disclaimer: If I have posted about something, then I obviously have no idea what I am talking about!